The Egalitarian Root

A most uncommon opinion piece issued in the New York Times, of all places, several weeks ago, which has led some among us to prick up our ears. The argument of David Reich’s “How Genetics is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race,’” in brief, is that recent scientific research makes it impossible to consistently sustain the view that all human “populations” are identical in “behavior and cognition”—though, as our author is swift to caution, scientific research is presently unable to determine just what the specific differences between those “populations” might be.

Caveat aside, Reich’s is a welcome admission to find in a newspaper of the status—and orientation—of the Times. But tempting though it is to feel that this is a sign we race realists are slowly advancing our front, it is far too early to consider this even a localized victory. It may even be the contrary: for, quite beyond the fact that there have also arisen the tediously predictable pious denunciations of Reich’s piece from various members of the “scientific community” (a real “social construct,” if ever there was one), and quite beyond the fact that Reich himself seems to stumble over his own shoelaces every time he comes near to touching any essential distinction between the various races, it must also be noted that even if every scientist now living openly adopted precisely the stance that Reich suggests, this alone would still not be sufficient to secure our victory in the intellectual field.

There is a tendency in certain circles of the Right to assume that “the science is on our side”—meaning that sooner or later, the overwhelming evidence in support of race realism must take its rights in the public discourse, and at that point the “narrative” will begin, avalanche-like, to shift inarrestably in our direction. I submit that Reich’s article reveals why the science, alone and unaided, is insufficient to this task.

Consistent Doublethink

Reich states, near the opening of his article:

It is true that race is a social construct. […] But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

We are liable to take this as a classic case of doublethink—scare quotes notwithstanding. But we will not get to the bottom of what is really happening here if we do not take Reich seriously in his claims.

To state it again, Reich’s argument is as follows: though science proves that there are measurable divergences between human populations, science is far from being able to propose what those divergences might actually entail.

Any one of us, of course, could give Reich a few suggestions on this score, and even direct him to a wealth of scientific findings which indicate specific racial differences with tolerable clarity. But I suspect that Reich is fully aware of these findings. Indeed, I believe he sees them as the problem, for which a solution must urgently be found; else I doubt he would have composed an article of this tone. Reich truly fears that the egalitarian premise (namely, that all or most human beings are literally “created equal,” and that the majority of manifest differences between them are reducible to environmental factors) “will not survive the onslaught of science,” as he himself puts it. But Reich is, at least in his public persona, equally devoted to an even more fundamental egalitarian premise (that human beings, despite all real or potential differences, are essentially equal in their worth)—as will surprise no one who knows anything about his background.

Reich’s drama is nothing less than the drama of the left itself in our day. The egalitarian left, through certain well-known theoreticians, intellectuals, and schools, has spent the past decades attempting to convince the wider public of the overwhelming importance of “nurture” over “nature” in the character of the human being. It has succeeded in this to an astonishing extent. But, as Reich understands, this basic premise can no longer sustain the weight of the growing body of scientific research. The left must therefore change rhetoric, and tactic to boot. It must use the enormous public sympathy it has garnered for egalitarianism in general, to counteract the force of specific scientific findings, by focusing the strength of egalitarian valuations away from the scientific plane, and back onto the moral and social one, where it is strongest.

Reich gives indication of how this is to play out when he suggests we approach the race question precisely as we have approached the gender question:

We should both recognize that genetic differences between males and females exist and we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences.

It is clear from the inequities that persist between women and men in our society that fulfilling these aspirations in practice is a challenge. Yet conceptually it is straightforward.

Let us suppress the urge to laugh out loud at this, particularly at the last bit of fantastic legerdemain, which obscures practically every major gender conflict of the past several centuries, as well as the chaos and confusion which these have spawned in everything from plummeting birthrates to rising “two-income households,” from the endless and irresolvable strife over inequalities in income and work-representation to the so-called “Me Too” campaign and its viciously unnatural ramifications for “gender relations”—all of which we are invited to ignore, because “conceptually it is straightforward.”

In point of fact, this conceptual straightforwardness is the very pith of the matter. There is nothing strictly incompatible between the position that “men and women are genetically different” on the one hand, and that “men and women should be equally represented in the workforce” on the other, so long as one is willing to tolerate a degree of practical messiness. The apparent contradictions in Reich’s statements vanish altogether if one accepts the premise that human beings are basically equal in value, no matter their differences in quality. This is the new egalitarianism, for which Reich is mere harbinger. And it is a purer and more consistent form of egalitarianism than any we have yet seen.

If I am right, we will see in coming years a rhetorical shift in the racial question, following the trail that Reich here has just begun to break. The injustice which is presently ascribed to environmental inequalities will simply be moved back a step, to genetic inequalities. No longer will it be claimed that we must give minority groups a temporary leg up in order to erode the disadvantages that have been historically forced on them; it will rather be argued that permanent advantages must be guaranteed to them because they have been injured by nature itself. A stroke of ill luck at birth, we shall be told, should not prohibit a man from enjoying the same opportunities or benefits that another man, who was endowed genetic advantages by an arbitrary fate, so unfairly possesses. Likely it will even be argued that whites have enforced centuries-long dysgenic practices against the other races, thus leading to a reduction in the innate capacities of the latter, a reduction of their genetic quality, average intelligence, etc. etc.

And it will certainly be argued, sooner or later, that the only way out of this evolutionary quandary is to interbreed to the point that all inborn racial capacities have been leveled and practically eliminated, and all advantages and disadvantages have been spread more or less evenly throughout the human population. This is not even to speak of the horrifying equalizing possibilities which genetics will one day afford us—as for instance the possibility of really and fundamentally “leveling the playing field” for every human being under the sun, starting already from his genetic make-up.

All of this to say that, by Reich’s view, we swing back precisely to where we presently stand, only by a different and more “scientific” route.

The face of America’s future, according to Nat’l Geographic. We can arrive at this end through science as well as not.

We have already seen gestures in this direction. When Kimani Paul-Emile suggests that Blackness should be treated as a disability, or when crippled people are rechristened as the “differently abled,” or when “curvy” (meaning grossly obese) begins to classify as the “new beauty,” all of this is nothing but an expression of the rotten heart of egalitarianism, which flinches not a whit at scientific discoveries of genetic differences, and which despises above all things the twin ideas of normality and excellence.

Make no mistake, Reich himself is “laying out the rational framework” for precisely such a change in egalitarian perspective. As he puts it:

An abiding challenge for our civilization is to treat each human being as an individual and to empower all people, regardless of what hand they are dealt from the deck of life.

Note that well—empower all people, no matter what genetic heritage they might happen to have been given by a cruel and indifferent fate. There is an entire egalitarian world contained in that little word “empower,” and I reckon that we will see it springing hideously to life in the near future.

The Invisible Hand

The major players who motion for such “empowerment,” it is needless to say, generally do so to serve certain definite interests, which are themselves anything but egalitarian. Reich gives a powerful indication of his real agenda by reproaching no lesser a biologist than the illustrious James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, for a comment that Watson allegedly made to Reich (and to Ben Shapiro): “When are you guys going to figure out why it is that you Jews are so much smarter than everyone else?” This comment, which is simultaneously amusing, utterly innocuous, and also strongly supported by the very genetics that Reich purports to defer to, is according to Reich “insidious,” “pseudo-science,” a “racist stereotype,” a “hateful idea.” Naturally! It is one thing to talk about “West Africans” and “European-Americans,” as Reich is pleased to do; but Watson, in speaking of the Jews, has touched an inch too near the nerve.

The monster himself, James Watson, who had the temerity to be simultaneously a preeminent scientist and a sensible race realist. If Reich has his way, science will remain, but uncomfortable figures like Watson will magically disappear.

But regardless of the hidden agendas here, this kind of maneuver will remain effective only insofar as there are yet a great many people who still fervently believe in egalitarianism and the justice of egalitarianism. And here is the essential point, which we must realize now, rather than later: science or scientific discoveries, no matter what they might reveal about human nature, can never touch the basic question of the justice or injustice of egalitarianism, nor pluck out the stubborn egalitarian root.

Science makes no value statements; it eschews all value as such (save the value of knowledge, upon which it is blindly premised). No scientific conclusion can lead one to change one’s morality, one’s view of right and wrong, one’s hierarchy of values. The contrary; every man inevitably interprets scientific conclusions in light of his fundamental values, rather than the other way around.

Men, not science, determine what is good and what is evil.

I will indeed go further yet: though science certainly does not “value egalitarianism,” science in a few profound and essential ways lends itself better to the egalitarian worldview than to our own: first, by reducing man and human things to their universalizable “basic elements,” meaning their lowest and crudest aspects; second, in its method, which attempts to equalize natural disparities in intellectual gifts by providing an artificial means of arriving at knowledge; and third in its technology, which is nothing but a forced leveling of human powers, an attempt to eradicate weakness and inequalities, and to conquer nature, which road ends necessarily in an attempt at the genetic “mastery” of human nature itself, as we have mentioned above. Science, to be sure, can be bent to elitist, aristocratic, or non-egalitarian ends—but this requires a conscious political and moral will which is entirely lacking in the present moment. Left to its own devices, science tends ever downward.

Which brings us back to our fundamental point. If we rely on science and the findings of science alone to effect the general change in worldview which we seek, we will wait long and ultimately in vain. Science is an indispensible tool to us in our efforts; but it is always just that—a tool. And it is a tool, make no mistake, which can be wielded as handily, if not more handily, by our opponents. “The science” is not on our side, has never been and shall never be; it is on no one’s side, because it refuses to take up sides whatsoever on the questions regarding first and last things. We must address these disputes on the level at which they are truly decided: the level of value, the level of good and bad, the level of love and hate.

Not the biological reality of racial differences, but the desirability of those differences—not the mere existence of natural human rank, but the innate goodness of natural human rank—this must be the principal meaning of our battle.

John Bruce Leonard
John Bruce Leonard, Editor-in-Chief of Arktos, studied philosophy, letters, and languages in a university curriculum based exclusively on the great books of the Western Tradition. After taking his degree in Liberal Arts he moved permanently to Italy, where he nourishes his ever-living preoccupation with the heritage and the future of Europe.


  • Mainstream alt-right believes that we can secure existence of white race and future for white children with peaceful separation and separated coexistence. I think it would buy us merely few decades or centuries at most. Entropy always wins and the nature overcomes it with extermination of competitive species.

    It is not in our nature to do that UNLESS we were existentially threatened. Therefore I think this is going exactly as it’s supposed to go. Their attack must be overt and they must clearly state their goal: racemix us out of existence.

    When cleansing starts we’re gonna have to deal with antropomorphous apes too. It’s now proven that niggers have been much dicking them. This is why Darwin predicted their extermination too. We can’t let him be wrong, can we?

  • Equality is just a government policy. If the law left insurance companies, and employers, and schools alone I think there would be lots of direct discrimination based on race. No discriminating against brown people allowed and lots of anti-white affirmative action for good measure.

  • There’s really 2 parts to this. There’s race realism — accepting the obvious differences between races and understanding that much of that difference is based in heritable factors — and then there’s your value system, ie., do you care that your own race survives. Race realism is helpful but leaning on it alone would be dangerous, I’d think. A true nationalist is for his race only, even if that race is at the bottom of the totem pole intellectually, genetically, whatever.

  • Dr. Watson, a truly monster. Just like Dr. Crick: he believed DNA was created by aliens. That is another way to say “God”. It seems he was reluctant to say the G word. But, in fact, he was saying it.

  • in the past thé left want to supress inequality but inequality Which came from à « social construct « such as class or proprety. Is Not engrave in your genes That your will inherit power or wealth. Also Not nature That you will Benefit from excelent religious school. But thé New left want to destroy genetic différences… Which is Really crazy… And Not suprisingly Not incompatible with à Ploutocratic rule from our beloved élites…

  • We (ie Whites) need to stop referring to non-Whites as “Minorities”; after all, world wide, it is we who are the minority.

  • At what point does the tolerance of genetically low IQ stop? Profoundly mentally handicapped people are institutionalized, even today, though some Down syndrome kids are encouraged to attend regular schools. Even when it is universally agreed that low IQ is an inherent physical quality in an individual, it is not always possible to integrate them into normal society.

    • Are you complaining about tolerance of Down syndrome, or tolerance of another race which may have slightly lower IQ than you? I wouldn’t go there if I were you. Liberals and atheists on average have higher IQ’s than conservatives. Jews have higher IQ than whites. He who uses IQ as his sword better be sure that sword is truly his and won’t betray him to his enemies.

      • Joe, did do not expect Jew to tolerate dumb White goyim. We would be perfectly happy for them to not tolerate us. The problem is they won’t let us be. It would be different if we were a drag on them as lower IQ groups are a drag on us, but we’re not. We are quite profitable for them. We are wrung out dry for mortgage and student loan interest as well as transfer payments.

        • It’s so sad how you think all Jews are on the same page. You deny agency to an entire race and then wonder why your own men deny your agency as a woman.

          • Respect is earned.
            There are popular Jews in the Altright, and some Jews that are respected in general. There were approximately 10,000 Jews that served in Hitler’s army.
            But trends and groups exist.

            “It’s so sad how you think all Jews are on the same page”
            This is just more straw-manning.

          • Thanks, Clark. The truth is I don’t think they’re all on the same page, but that’s not really the issue anyway. Of course all Jews don’t look at me and see someone to exploit, but what is or is not going on in their heads is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that this transfer of wealth is happening. Moreover, we’re not allowed to talk about it, and that is unquestionably the result of a deliberate conspiracy. If nobody ever mentions the 800 pound gorilla in the room, there’s a reason for that.

          • Absolutely.
            The Jews are a Diaspora people and their pattern is to go from white country to white country and exploit our trust-based societies and employ cultural subversion.
            It sounds insane but it’s true, and even some rare brilliant Jews had enough self-awareness to realize it, e.g., Otto Weininger from the late 19th century.

          • “exploit our trust-based societies and employ cultural subversion.”

            By cultural subversion do you refer to feminism and LGBT rights? Because that’s being promoted to all the cultures, not just whites – whites just are accepting it first. Most liberals of all races in America support those things too, not just Jews. I support feminist principles such as the right to vote, own property, run for office, etc. Most Americans do, including conservatives.

            Ironically, the most dangerous subversive philosopher in Western society was not even Jewish, and he happens to have fans in this website: Friedrich Nietzsche. The second most subversive was Charles Darwin, and we all know how much the Alt-Right loves social Darwinism.

          • “The fact of the matter is that this transfer of wealth is happening”

            And it would keep happening even if every Jew on the planet vanished. The richest man in the world is a Mestizo Mexican. Greed is not just a Jew problem, it is a human problem.

          • IOW “IfJews weren’t exploiting you, it would be the Dutch, or the Chinese, etc…”

            That’s not good enough, Joe. As a sincere leftist, you shouldn’t be taking exploitation for granted, but you are doing so because you are housebroken.

            Joe, would you ever seriously entertain this defense if proffered on behalf of greedy White men? “If we weren’t sucking you (mestizo wage slaves) dry, the Jews would pick up the slack. Greed is a human problem.”

            Speaking of subversion, you do realize that is what the struggle against racism, White supremacy, and White privilege is all about, don’t you? It’s a grand diversion. Some see through it, like Farrakhan.

            They have turned not only all non-White groups against White men, but even their own women. Knowing feminism has run it’s course, they’re now getting out in front of the reaction and setting White men against their own women. Of course it’s working, because they are exploiting genuine grievances, just like last time.

            I understand you, Joe, and I am beginning to respect you. I never humor bullshit or dishonesty from men I respect.

          • “This is just more straw-manning.”

            No it is not. Mike Enoch divorced his Jewish wife because he didn’t want to be criticized by his fans, despite that Jewish wife being supportive of his agenda. Paul Nehlen was dissociated from for having a Jewish spokesperson. On every Alt-Right website including this one, enemies are accused of Jewish blood. You may judge people individually, but most in your movement do not.

          • “You may judge people individually, but most in your movement do not.”

            It’s true that not all Altrighters are the same (especially considering it spans various countries and sub-ethnic groups), and that there isn’t really a unified core doctrine yet. Altright is still big tent, and I personally identify as a fascist. I don’t have as much faith in democracy as you do.

            “Ironically, the most dangerous subversive philosopher in Western society was not even Jewish, and he happens to have fans in this website: Friedrich Nietzsche.”

            Nietzsche was certainly radical, but I don’t see why he would be considered as subversive from a right-wing perspective. What I want is basically what Nietzsche wanted, and I agree with him that long-term, liberalism/Christianity will annihilate all culture and biological human substrate of any real value.

            “By cultural subversion do you refer to feminism and LGBT rights? Because that’s being promoted to all the cultures, not just whites – whites just are accepting it first.”

            Among other things yes, this is what I am referring to. I agree with you that this is not only the fault of the Jews for being at the forefront of pushing these ideas, because whites have themselves become degenerated enough to accept them. And I also acknowledge that much of the world is indeed accepting liberalism, American consumerism, and worship of technology and physical comfort. I simply see this phenomenon as a negative whereas you see it as a positive. The bottom line is that if you feel that this is in your interests, and I feel that is is against my interests, that is the end of the argument really.

          • I am very proud of the way this movement handled Wifegate.

            Doesn’t the fact that he is still going strong prove that we understand there are outliers?

  • 1) The left’s obsession with egalitarianism betrays its fundamentally illiberal nature. That obsession is ever morphing into new strains and ever spreading into new domains.
    2) An obsession with egalitarianism is always & everywhere incompatible with ordered liberty. No civilization can thrive that takes hard egalitarianism seriously.
    3) JBL is right. Until we can expose equality as a fundamentally undesirable goal, it doesn’t really matter what science says about race or sex or most other things. We must strike at the root to extirpate the blight.
    JBL has a way with words.

  • Jews may be more intelligent than the Japhetides but they are less good-looking. (Don’t tell that to the Judenknechts 😉

    • Ah..
      The myth of the deeply intellectual , mentally superior and serious thinker kike..
      Israel has a median I.Q.that’s lower than that of most almost all European countries .
      Would you guess , by watching any Jewllywood movie, that Italians constantly score a substantially higher I.Q. than that of Israelis ?
      Every single year , by any standard and comparison utilized since …forever..

      • Well, obviously they are selling a worldview that advances their own tribal interests, but it should be noted that the Jews are not precisely one ethnocultural population, but 3 or 4.
        The Jews do not have an IQ of 107-100. Ashkenazi Jews do. Ashkenazis are but one Jewish population. Israel is actually only about 30% Ashkenazi. And furthermore, Ashkenazis in Israel are, on average, less intelligent than Ashkenazis elsewhere, by roughly 5-10 IQ points (their mean IQ in Israel is about 103-105). Probably because they are more religious types or perhaps because they are without certain positive things we have in the West. But anyway, the point remains. Ashkenazi Jews do have a high IQ. That is not exactly the case for non-Ashkenazi Jews. Sephardic Jews have a mean IQ between 95-98 (somewhere near the Southern European norm). Mizrachi Jews have a mean IQ of about 92.

  • I couldn’t help myself sharing with you a gem from Shakespeare:

    ” tony “……..another foreign talking whinging immigrant calling us brits racist……. blah blah yawn yawn,well this comment is NOT racist,just fuck off back to your homeland if you wish to disrespect the british way of life,think yourself thankful to be welcomed here fucking arse hole !!!”

    Shakespeare the father of English!

    • Side effects of BBL photofacials include skin redness similar to a sunburn, swelling and tenderness, which should all resolve a few days after your treatment cialis viagra combo pack Moreover, dysbiosis of microbiota is responsible for the occurrence of many other diseases in humans such as cardiovascular, cancer, allergy, and the microbiota also affect the human immune system and the synthesis of nutrients Thomas et al

  • Excellent piece; illuminating but also disturbing. (By the way, the comments section here has become a chaotic mess, very off-putting.)

  • So you publish the notorious Juden(knecht) troll John Engelman and ban me?! Nice. Welcome to the anonymous mass of idiots and to the Judenknechts nutters’ ward!

  • Negro Muslim (“Lampedusa refugee”) Mourtala Madou from Niger beheads his little daughter in Hamburg subway and stabs her mother. Hanseatic tolerance and “church asylum” made it possible.

  • Taylor speaks more original English than his contemporaries understand. A look at Wikipedia would explain it to them. Apart from the fact that it is a clever move of his to emphasize this important word in this way, he is associated with it.

  • Rich’s + Greg’s Fecesberg debate

    Gregory: “Why would I pay that amount of money to get knowledge that I get out of reading Machiavelli and Mein Kampf?” Lol.

    • Richard: “Someone’s gonna die because of these connections we’re creating.”

      The inventor of the car did not consider how many road deaths he will have on his conscience. Not to mention the developer of the sleeping pill. You can even hang yourself in the closet on your belt. IKEA should therefore show guilt and atonement towards all the nameless suicides.

      • Richard: “The left is highly tolerant.”

        Today, tolerance is sold to us as a “normal condition”. Above all from the Jewish side, see the self-authorized “Tolerance Law” (ECTR) of the Jews Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor (Oligarch) and Yoram Dinstein (Israel).

        Interesting about tolerance is its importance in materials science. There tolerance means the area of how long a material can be overstrained and exposed to stress until it breaks or bursts.

        Tolerance means to endure. So accept something beyond all measure that doesn’t do you any good. If your boss demands “110 percent work performance” from you every day, then your body will not go along with it in the long run, it will become ill and unable to function. It’s the same with whole societies.

      • “Not to mention the developer of the sleeping pill.”

        To hell with the sleeping pill and to hell with all mind-altering prescription drugs!

  • The background alone explains everything.
    I always ask the race deniers how they explain forensic and archeological science that can identify the race, sex, age, and origin of a person from a skull or jaw fragment.
    They never do like Egyptology.

  • Acquiring and disseminating scientific evidence that the races differ innately in average qualities important to the creation and maintenance of viable societies can be a career stopper. Therefore I sympathize with David Reich’s reluctant concessions to political correctness. Those concessions were necessary to get his essay past the Censorship Board.

    Every effort to expand the area in which one can safely discuss the relationship between genes, intelligence, crime, monogamy and race should be welcomed, because every effort remains dangerous.

    An outspoken race realist is like a guest at a Georgetown dinner party who tells the person sitting next to him that the hostess worked her way through Vassar as a call girl. Even if that is true – no especially if it is true – such a guest will be erased from everyone’s invite lists.

    • How’s your health, John? Are you still sick with yelling w fever? You have a nasty case of it if memory serves.

      • Hi.

        I keep busy propagating the truths of race realism. A lot of people do not want to be told those truths.

    • Tell that to your beloved Jews. They are the rulers of the USA. Ask permission from them. Tell them that you are a great a.. liker of Jewish bums…

  • The fact that Jews are overly clever is an invention of the Jews themselves. It turned out that they only do a little better than others in the field of language ability, it already ends in logical thinking.

    • If one considers the fact of exploiting an entire world for its benefit, one must, despite the inevitable consequences of hatred and rejection after the mechanisms have been exposed, however, speak of high intelligence.

      • But it can also be put more succinctly: If they are too clever – you are too stupid!
        After all, it is not forbidden to seduce and manipulate others against their will.

        • # From Oldenburg ..I am just going to spit out what’s on my mind here :
          40 straight posts ,one right after the other .. it’s just ..much.
          It does not contribute to a good , harmonic discussion or even just an interesting read.
          There , I said it.
          No need to get all pissy and personal about it , just humbly consider it.

          • Only someone who thanks himself so quickly and enthusiastically will use three exclamation marks, you incurable cancer. Man, what must your mother be ashamed of you for giving birth to such a freak, not to talk about your friend “Stefano”.

          • Another mentally ill canal rat who wants to force her “conversation” on me.

          • If you are Johnny+Parasitismo (or just a very
            stupid “master edition” of him), I leave it open.

          • If you are Johnny+Parasitismo (or just a
            very stupid edition of him), I leave it open.

          • If you are Johnny+Parasitismo (or just a
            very stupid “master edition” of him): What
            ya wanna, protozoa, except breathing our air?

          • So who asked you again to open your ass to farting? Just
            keep it closed, as long as no one shows any interest in it.

          • I’ll make you some “Stefano” (on the stairs
            and from behind), spaghetti shitting itaker.

          • Bother your cheap romance whores with your
            “rebellious” pushiness, if they depend on you.

          • For guys like you, I’d write 40 comments
            about how disgusting and perverse you
            are. You’re dirt, garbage, junk, and always
            have been! Foul bazille! Pile of dirt. Itaker!

          • You lying bastards with your fucking church
            bothering the whole world. Why? Because
            you murdered Jesus, you fucking bastards!

            DISGUSTING and WEAK you are!

          • I must admit, this is the first time I’ve read your
            “comment”. After spitting out 40 (?) comments.

          • But it is interesting that you first have to get rid of all your hatred in order to “talk” to people like you. Because you don’t really want that. But after that, you don’t care. I’m not really interested in your idiotic “opinion”, which is worth even less than a fart from my sick house-mouse.

          • Your commentary doesn’t give anything substantial, no matter how many times I read it. There’s no question, no knowledge, no wisdom, not even a joke. I’m not doing anything informative. Just a smack from your sick fan Johnny+Parasitismo. If I were a woman, I would ask: What does this guy want? I guess you’ve heard that question a hundred thousand times in your life, so there’s no need to ask it 100,001 times. So far I don’t know what you want or don’t want, what your concern is, what you want in life and what matters. So I guess your comments are about as important and valuable as the farts that slip out of our ass every day.

          • I know I could have shortened it all with “Now don’t you start whining too!”

            But since I was drunk, and you criticized my “many comments” (as a non-member you can only insert one link per comment), you got the long version.

            I know, one shouldn’t write when one is drunk. But for guys like you I don’t care neither about content nor or about form.

            Besides, I have explicit permission to annoy you (lol):

          • PS: Since I have nothing personally against Italians, I will withdraw my personal attacks against you. (Probably I wrote them because such mental cripples like “Futurosmo” applauded you.)

            After all, I didn’t start this silly “war” against such contemptible nobodys.

          • 1) I have nothing personal against you ,you even make some good points ,my point is simply that it’s just a bit.. “much ” quantity -wise.
            Calm down a bit, I beg you.
            “Stefano ” is simply the name my mother gave me .
            I have made a life trying to have nothing to cover or to hide .
            Not even my defense of the axis reasons .

    • I can accept the fact that Jewish men have a good head for business and Jewish women give the best head.

  • Nicholas Wade was also writing for the NYT. Though they distanced themselves from him when he wrote his famous book on race (Troublesome Inheritance). Guess that outlet doesn’t filter their scientists’ ideologies well enough. Wouldn’t be surprised if they fire Reich for mentioning race at all.

  • Some tidbits from the book. White nationalists will have to develop a way to cope with these findings (which I believe are true), and the lessons which Reich would have us draw from them (which I contest)

    Not a book review, merely a collection of quotations, to provide some grist for the mill.

    Reich on sprinting ability and cognitive ability among West Africans, that most genetically diverse of population groups (whose genetic diversity is on average 33 percent higher than in Europeans): “An alternative explanation that would predict the same magnitude of effect is that there is simply more variation in sprinting ability in people of West African ancestry–with more people of very high and very low abilities . . . . For many biological traits–including cognitive ones–there is expected to be a higher proportion of sub-Saharan Africans with extreme genetically predicted abilities.” WWA+HWGH 264-65.

    Other tidbits from the book —–>

    Reich on race mixing: “The genome revolution has taught us that great mixtures of highly divergent populations have occurred repeatedly. Instead of a tree, a better metaphor might be a trellis, branching and remixing far back into the past.” WWA&HWGH 81.

    On the diverse origins of modern-day Europeans: “About 10,000 years ago there were at least four major populations in West Eurasia–the farmers of the Fertile Crescent, the farmers of Iran, the hunter-gatherers of central and western Europe, and the hunter-gatherers of eastern Europe. All these populations differed from one another as much as Europeans differ from East Asians today. Scholars interested in trying to create ancestry-based racial classifications, had they lived ten thousand years ago, would have categorized these groups as “races,” even though none of these groups survives in unmixed form today.” WWA&HWGH 95.

    And again: “By demonstrating that the genetic fault lines in West Eurasia between ten thousand and four thousand years ago were entirely different from today’s, the ancient DNA revolution has shown that today’s classifications do not reflect fundamental “pure” units of biology. Instead, today’s divisions are recent phenomena, with their origin in repeated mixtures and migrations. The findings of the ancient DNA revolution suggest that the mixtures will continue. Mixture is fundamental to who we are, and we need to embrace it, not deny that it occurred.” WWA&HWGH 97.

    Reich on his own Ashkenazi “caste” identity: “There is no escaping my background as a Jew. I was raised by parents whose highest priority was being open to the secular world, but they themselves had been raised in a deeply religious community and were children of refugees from persecution in Europe that left them with a strong sense of ethnic distinctiveness. When I was growing up, we followed Jewish rules at home . . . and I went for nine years to a Jewish school and spent many summers in Jerusalem. From my parents as well as from my grandparents and cousins I imbibed a strong sense of difference–a feeling that our group was special–and a knowledge that I would cause disappointment and embarrassment if I married someone non-Jewish (a conviction that I know also had a powerful effect on my siblings).” p. 145

    On the genetic structure of India, largely determined by caste: “The Han Chinese are truly a large populations. They have been mixing freely for thousands of years. In contrast, there are few if any Indian groups that are demographically very large, and the degree of genetic differentiation among Indian “jati” groups living side by side in the same village is typically two to three times higher than the genetic differentiation between northern and southern Europeans. The truth is that India is composed of a large number of small populations.” p.146

    On Ancient Egypt: “There is little if any Sub-Saharan related ancestry in ancient Near Easterners or Egyptians prior to medieval times.” p.217

    On race-mixing in modern America: “Today there are hundreds of millions of people in the Americas with African ancestry, the largest numbers in Brazil, the Caribbean, and the United States. The mixing of three highly divergent populations in the Americas–Europeans, indigenous people, and sub-Saharan Africans–that began almost five hundred years ago continues to this day. Even in the United States, where European Americans are still in the majority, African Americans and Latinos comprise around a third of the population.” p. 230

    “A 1973 science-fiction novel, Piers Anthony’s Race Against Time, envisions a future in which the mixing of populations initiated by European colonialism reaches its inevitable conclusion, and by the year 2300 nearly all humans belong to a “Standard” population . . . . The premise of the novel is that the centuries after 1492 were a uniquely homogenizing time in the history of our species, a period of unprecedented mixing of previously separated populations enabled by transoceanic travel, which brought together groups whose ancestors had not been in contact with one another for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. But this premise was mistaken. The genome revolution has shown that we are not living in particularly special times when viewed from the perspective of the great sweep of the human past. Mixtures of highly divergent populations have happened time and again, homogenizing populations as divergent from one another as Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans.” p. 231

    On the Yamnaya (aka Aryans): “Marija Gimbutas has argued that Yamnaya society was unprecedentedly sex-biased and stratified . . . . The preponderance of Y chromosomes of steppe origin in both western Europe and in India today is much larger than the proportion of steppe ancestry n the rest of the genome. This preponderance of male ancestry coming from the steppe implies that male descendants of the Yamnaya with political or social power were more successful at competing for local mates than men from the local groups . . . . [During the Bronze Age] it began to be possible for single males to accumulate so much power that they could not only gain access to large numbers of females, but they could pass on their social prestige to subsequent generations and ensure their male descendants were similarly successful. This process caused the Y chromosomes these males carried to increase in frequency generation after generation, leaving a genetic scar that speaks volumes about past societies.” — NOTE THE TERM “GENETIC SCAR” — p.241

    Against nationalism: “To understand the power of the genome revolution for undermining old stereotypes about identity and building up a new basis for identity, consider how its finding of repeated mixtures in human history has destroyed nearly every argument that used to be made for biologically based nationalism . . . . We now know taht nearly every group living today is the product of repeated population mixtures that occurred over thousands and tens of thousands of years. Mixing is in human nature, and no population is–or could be–“pure.”” — p. 268

    On the homogenization of the African American population: “Africans from one part of the continent were traded around and mixed with those from another, with the result that within a few generations the great cultural diversity and variation of ancestry that existed among the first slaves were blurred to the point of unrecognizability” — p. 270

    In conclusion: “The genome revolution provides us with a shared history that, if we pay proper attention, should give us an alternative to the evils of racism and nationalism, and make us realize that we are all entitled equally to our human heritage.” — p. 273

    • “Against nationalism: “To understand the power of the genome revolution for undermining old stereotypes about identity and building up a new basis for identity, consider how its finding of repeated mixtures in human history has destroyed nearly every argument that used to be made for biologically based nationalism . . . . We now know taht nearly every group living today is the product of repeated population mixtures that occurred over thousands and tens of thousands of years. Mixing is in human nature, and no population is–or could be–“pure.”” — p. 268”

      This is genetic fallacy, not “genetic” in the sense of pertaining to genes, but genetic in the sense of pertaining to geneses, i.e. origins. The origins of a thing do not determine its value today.

      Otherwise, when will Israel open their borders to unlimited African migration?

    • Well I contest that this line of thinking will reduce humanity to a lower state of being.
      After all humans are inter-mixed and all their cultural roots cut, people will still have instincts for belonging and identity, but will have nothing legitimate to grasp onto.
      The modern form of techno-culture that neo-liberalism replaces traditional culture with elevates only the most thoughtless, psychopathic, and basic elements of man.
      Even if the vast majority of humanity is re-designed to be suited for a world without meaningful history, culture, or values other than the relative accumulation of wealth and the satisfaction of immediate needs, groups that define themselves as separate from the generic mass will inevitably form organically and ascend to rulership or distinction through some means.
      You can grind humanity down all the way to the point where everybody is identical, but reality will eventually arrive and people will still have to compete for resources. They will form groups and discriminate the world around them using their perceptions of themselves and others. Eventually a new caste system will form based on a re-ordering and creation of new, and not necessarily improved, categories of humanity.

      Reich’s point is merely that social, spiritual, and racial change is inevitable, so we should just accept any path and any outcome for humanity because nothing can be fundamentally categorized as different in value than anything else.
      My response is that this is not really how human beings actually function, and all that will be accomplished is that everything precious and of higher value that humanity has accumulated over the millennia will be lost.
      Processes of human differentiation will continue regardless of how much of humanity is destroyed via technology and the efforts of the elite class, who would absolutely never ever allow themselves to be bred as indiscriminately as Reich claims is perfectly suitable to the masses.

      Reich is just a Jew and as such gains pleasure in seeing the rest of humanity lose their ability to claim sovereignty based on anything other than the relative accumulation of money, which his group has been breeding themselves to specialize and succeed in for the last couple thousand years.

      I don’t trust him and I don’t think what he vouches for offers any kind of improvement to humanity as it has traditionally existed. This mode of thinking depends too much on the unproven assumption that we will always have enough general wealth and technology to distract ourselves from any deeper analysis of life. Once the Soma runs out, the Tower of Babel will collapse, and the process will simply begin again. I just don’t see the point of consciously going down this route, and I fear that what he proposes will only serve to set us back thousands upon thousands of years.

  • Great article. In a more bluntly spoken age, egalitarianism was called “leveling.” It always means leveling *down* because you cannot level *up* without sufficient material. Egalitarianism means reducing everyone to the “sustainable minimum,” which is not sustainable at all because the minimum is zero. Someone worse off than others will always be found (a paraplegic, a profoundly retarded person; etc.) The race to the minimum ends in the graveyard, where everyone is equal. The core of egalitarianism is hatred of the good for being good: it’s a death cult, no different from Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid cult except in academic sophistication. Old Jimmy’s atrocity can’t hold a candle to the destruction John Rawls et al. will do. If you want egalitarianism dramatized, may I suggest Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “Harrison Bergeron”; it lays bare the hideous envy, jealousy, insanity, and evil of the monster known as egalitarianism.

    • “The core of egalitarianism is hatred of the good for being good”

      That line you used could have been taken right from one of Friedrich Nietzsche’s books. Nihilists despise egalitarianism. Every mainstream religion on this planet practice and teach racial egalitarianism.

      • Yes , but interesting to point out also that almost every single religion ,sect and cult on earth has had a racist philosophy within its past credence and scripture .
        Not necessarily ” hateful “, nevertheless clearly and solidly racist .
        Some, deep inside , still hold on to it.
        Or some of it.

      • Gothic Joe: “Every race should be allowed to exist and have their own countries except for white people because I want their stuff. I’m a hero for justice just like they told me on Netflix!”

        • Nope. Races don’t have rights, individuals do. I oppose Zionism from the same principle I oppose white nationalists. Try again.

          • “Races don’t have rights, individuals do.”

            The Chinese have a right to their own country, the Japanese have a right to their own country, the Russians have a right to their own country, and on and on it goes.

            There are international conferences that exist with representatives from each nation, hence, for example, the United Nations.

            You can pretend all you like that there is no such thing as natural groups of people, but you or your children will eventually have to deal with that reality.

          • And come to think of it, races do in fact have rights, hence laws that exist to prevent genocide, enforce affirmative action quotas, etc.

          • Laws preventing genocide pertain to bombings, not interracial marriage. That’s proof that it exists to protect the lives of individuals rather than to “protect race.”

          • I appreciate your skill in working ideas to your advantage, but your claim is simply untrue.

            The UN definition of genocide includes:
            (1) Killing members of the group;
            (2) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
            (3) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
            (4) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
            (5) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

            You can check it here:

            There is evidence that (1), (2), (3), and (4) are happening to various white ethnic groups, and to whites as a whole.

            I really don’t understand why you are so driven to deny that people have interests as racial and cultural groups. Like to me it just seems bizarre and I can’t relate to it at all. Protecting individuals is important, and I agree that each individual should be judged by their own actions, but denying racial and cultural identity just seems to me to be overlooking a huge and fundamental dimension of human life.

        • cialis online cheap The growing interest in measuring blood free testosterone FT is constrained by the unsuitability of the laborious reference methods for wider adoption in routine diagnostic laboratories

  • This is an excellent article that needed to be written.

    A few quibbles:

    First, sincere egalitarians could certainly claim that biological inequalities are unfair and demand compensatory intervention on behalf of the disadvantaged, and no doubt many will.

    OTOH, as Mr. Leonard points out, much egalitarian activism is driven by ulterior motives. I have said before that contemporary egalitarianism is in reality a stealth form of social Darwinism. (From behind the Veil of Ignorance where no one is aware of their own interests, all would agree that the best should rise to the top regardless of color or creed.)

    I predict that this article represents a shift from implicit to explicit social Darwinism. Our enemies have imported Hispanics to replace blacks and Asians to replace Whites, on the grounds that we’re all the same. Now, they will abandon egalitarianism and use meritocracy to justify Asian and Jewish overachievement relative to their numbers. If anything, egalitarianism might actually help Whites resist Jewish and Asian domination going forward, and that is why our hostile elite will rather abandon it than double down.

    Although White men are the most accomplished group in history, our social Darwinist overlords will claim this was a mere coincidence. They will point to SAT math scores to support this view:

    Asian boys: 614
    Asian girls: 590
    White boys: 550
    White girls: 518

    Now, not only Asian boys, but even Asian girls beat White boys on their own test, and this by a larger margin than White boys enjoy over White girls. If you argue meritocracy, don’t be surprised if your hoist on your ow petard.

    Our conflict is not an ideological struggle between egalitarianism and meritocracy. Rather, it is a tribal conflict of blood and soil. We fight because Whites are our family. Of course, libertarians won’t like this, but then libertarianism is an-anti racist creed at heart, even when it is embraced by race realists.

    The more I think about our situation, the more I am convinced that nationalism and socialism are inseparable. You can’t have one without the other. If the group does not care about the individual, the individual owes no duty of loyalty to the group.

    • BTW, I would like to clarify that I don’t claim that libertarians can’t be good nationalists, so long as, and this is important, it is libertarianism in one country, i.e. national libertarianism. Better yet, we might call it racial libertarianism.

      Among Whites, libertarians presumably do not object to the idea of a duty of care to marginal Whites, but rather claim that economic freedom is more utilitarian than state control. That is, free markets help all Whites more than state control. Of course, they do not lack for evidence to support this notion.

      These are just two sides of the same coin, and there is no reason they can’t work together, much as anti-nationalist ancaps can cooperate with international socialists when they are in agreement, as indeed they did when they took down Nazi Germany.

      • All that said, I do think socialism is more ideologically consonant with nationalism, even if capitalism delivers better pragmatic results.

        Whites are, I’m afraid, either an extended family or a social construct. If we are an extended family, then we must demand that our elites embrace noblesse oblige. Fortunately, we know that White elites are capable of this, because we have seen it in the past. Champagne socialists (the only kind that have enough power and resources to matter) have cared for Whie paroles in the past, and can be convinced to do so again so long as they are socially rewarded rather than punished (Racist!) for doing so.

    • I’m even starting to think that the slaves of Roman times were afforded a higher dignity than the citizens of modern day Western countries.

      They could not vote, could not own property, could not flee, and yet they were considered as important members of the family, were entrusted to raise and train the children, and were able to rise above their caste if they could prove their competence and loyalty, among other technicalities.

      Crazy as it sounds, I bet more slaves loved and respected their rulers than modern citizens of modern Western states. Who could possibly think it an act of high valor to sacrifice their life for Justin Trudeau? Are there really any leftists who would proudly take a bullet to uphold Justin Trudeau’s politically correct usage of gender pronouns?

      I can’t help but think that there would be more dignity in defending the lives of one’s slave-master’s family in ancient times, than in defending the lives of any modern Western politician.

    • ” libertarianism is an-anti racist creed at heart”

      Yes, it is. Libertarianism is inherently incompatible with nationalism and racial loyalty.

      • If you are talking about neo -generic libertarian morons, yes.
        But not necessarily .
        The Dixiecrats , Jim Crow.. all could be considered paleo -libertarians, tendencially.

          • Rothbard , Hoppe ..huge White civilization and right to discriminate defenders .
            And both were not at all pro open borders and not even pro free trade ,which they recognized as a trick to degrade the free market principles .
            True , the mass of modern , generic , pro marijuana ,pro gay marriage neo-libertarians are instead a bunch of degraded , worthless cunts and dicks .
            But we are not fighting against a generic word like libertarianism ,which like all political words ,can be interpreted in many ways .
            And if that one word to fight against must exist then I would say that “progressivism ” is still the one.

  • “it will rather be argued that permanent advantages must be guaranteed to them because they have been injured by nature itself.”

    As soon as I read this I knew you are correct in your prediction. This is what is going to happen, because I can already imagine people arguing this way. Egalitarians already know this fact but will not readily admit it, yet.

    • I was trying to tell HBD/Sailersphere people this years and years ago. That the IQ data was no silver bullet.

    • “Egalitarians already know this fact but will not readily admit it, yet.”

      Says who? I am perfectly content to admit that true Egalitarianism is based on eternal principles like morality rather than something as trivial as “genetic based IQ differences among the races.” This shouldn’t come as a surprise to any of you. Most egalitarians will readily tell you that on average men are stronger than women. But so what? Does this mean women should be oppressed by the state, or made to feel ashamed when they defy stereotypes? Of course not! Well, same principle applies with race.

      • I was referring to my conversations with leftist egalitarians who will implicitly state that minorities have lower IQ but not explicitly admit it when directly asked.

  • Brilliant article! Egalitarianism is a moral system completely flexible in response to any direction that science goes. If science says the environment is the cause of differences in different populations, then the Egalitarians say, “fix the environment.” If science those differences are genetically fixed, then the Egalitarians say, “ok, we must compensate the genetic losers”. Only if egalitarianism goes away is there any hope. I am not hopeful.

    • “If science says the environment is the cause of differences in different populations, then the Egalitarians say, “fix the environment.” If science those differences are genetically fixed, then the Egalitarians say, “ok, we must compensate the genetic losers”.”

      And this is wrong because?

    • cialis generic reviews science this video is part of playlist examining the diverse biological factors which influence the development of chromosomal, gonadal, our express video of the week covers selective estrogen receptor modulators from the pharmacology section of the selective estrogen receptor modulators serms objectives serm classification clomiphene tamoxifen raloxifene selective estrogen receptor modulators serms ilovepharmacology serms tamoxifene citrate 1

  • James Watson……

    Who elucidated the Marvelous Stereochemical Structure of the Deoxyribonucleic Acid Double Stranded Helix…….

    For all the World to see……..

    Our Enemies declare him a ‘Racist’………

    That’s all they have to do…….

    Persona Non Grata to the (((Mainstream)))……

    A Great Genius and Heroic Giant to Awakened White People……..

    Our Enemies have long hated Mr. Watson………

    They claim he stole the Nobel Prize from (((Rosalind Franklin))), the X-Ray Crystallographer whose research contributed greatly to the Discovery……..

    How many other White Geniuses and Intellectual Giants have they tried to Destroy or Memory Hole who they feel threatened by??

    The Arguments for a Racially Homogeneous Nation where we can celebrate our own Great Ones are Common Sense……

    We don’t need to justify it to them……..

    Only to ourselves……

  • Only the loser in a game cries for equality. All men aren’t born equal, Some will be born rich beautiful and healthy while some will be born poor sick and ugly. Life isn’t fair so wanting everyone to be the same is just wanting everyone to be equally miserable. You know Communism.

    • “Only the loser in a game cries for equality.”

      This statement is false, North African. The richest people in the world are for the most part calling for tolerance and social equality. Nerds are the most powerful people in the world.

      P.S. And let’s not forget Christianity, which has been calling for social equality since the time of Jesus.

      • Equality according to the Declaration: equality before Law, equal rights and duties, opportunities for all, justice for all, the right to the pursuit of happiness for all, and we all are God’s children therefore we all have the same human dignity when we are born (that is the meaning of “born equal”)
        I am not American but the Declaration absolutely rocks!
        Then, the SJW “equality”: everybody poor and ugly and lamed and dumb and mixed raced and genderless, and godless, and with no cultural identity neither homeland.
        United Colors of Benetton crap.

        • What’s wrong with being biracial? It’s funny how you say “It’s Ok To Be White” but then get outraged if a white marries outside the white race.

          • It is Ok to be biracial, too. But it can be dangerous if the biracial kid is the children of a mud shark and a black man.
            Some intra racial mix like Nordic with Med or Slavic with Med, which is something pretty common in Europe today, are cultural enrichment for the kids. They have the best of both worlds.
            But I really doubt that Nordic with black is a cultural enrichment. I think it is a cultural mess. Watch the movie “The white Masai”.

  • Good article. The battle against equality is moral and ideological, although direct scientific evidence to the contrary certainly helps. It’s also been my experience that white liberals are the most fervent believers of egalitarianism. Minorities tend to say they believe it, especially when it benefits them, but in private they believe in differences, however they interpret it. Strangely enough, the presence of non-whites in leftist power structures may somewhat dampen egalitarian extremism.

Leave a Reply